If he's an illogical person who assumes bad intentions where there are none, then that will carry through to other parts of his life, not just a website.If instead he's a level-headed person who possesses empathy, then he will use this opportunity to validate his kindness and grow.So far the former seems to be the case alas. Not everyone can rise to small challenges.

Well, since philosophy (particularly theology) is a great enjoyment of mine, and I haven't been in a good debate in a while, I'll respectfully engage in logic-based debate with you. I'll make a few claims to set the premise:

Such a cafe is advertising employees rather than product, and they must be doing this for a reason

Any focus other than the coffee lessens the coffee; that's why most of the great cafe's serve only coffee or outsource to local businesses for food

Hiring baristas strictly for looks harms the coffee quality due to inadequate preparation; such an establishment does so. Don't believe me? What would happen if I applied there?

Yar Said:

Just because a business has attractive women, that doesn't mean their coffee is bad. That's no more logical than saying that if a person wears a hoodie, they're a thief.

What's that you said about Starbucks baristas in your first post? Anyway, I don't like straw men arguments in philosophy; they are erroneous. Personifying the advertisements of a business into a poor stereotype has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If I drive by a cafe advertising caramel spice lattes I suspect that their coffee is inferior; similarly, when I see a drive through advertising bikini baristas, I suspect that their coffee is inferior. If you want to parse over the reasoning behind that I'm game.

Finally, as conversation on a board meant for the betterment of espresso and coffee, the topic of barista clothing does not fit in. The amount of clothing one wears will not affect a shot of espresso. Mark Prince is your superior both as a moderator and coffee expert, and at minimum this should demand respect.

The issue at hand is also one of ethics, and the argument for the less ethical "objectifying of women" as Mark put it is attempting to raise disagreement (unless you actually hold to the possibility of clothing ratio affecting shot quality?). In my opinion, that constitutes as trolling.

There's a big difference between drinking coffee to wake up and waking up to drink coffee.

I've just issued Yar a 24 hour "break" from the forums based on his personal attack against another person's religion and choice in such. Our forum and website rules state you cannot attack someone (or criticise some one) based on their sex, colour, creed, or religion. I've also deleted the posts involved. I have not issued a strike against his account at this time, but if Yar comes back, I suggest he take a moment to

Symbols: = New Posts since your last visit = No New Posts since last visit = Newest post

Forum Rules:No profanity, illegal acts or personal attacks will be tolerated in these discussion boards.No commercial posting of any nature will be tolerated; only private sales by private individuals, in the "Buy and Sell" forum.No SEO style postings will be tolerated. SEO related posts will result in immediate ban from CoffeeGeek.No cross posting allowed - do not post your topic to more than one forum, nor repost a topic to the same forum.Who Can Read The Forum? Anyone can read posts in these discussion boards.Who Can Post New Topics? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post new topics.Who Can Post Replies? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post replies.Can Photos be posted? Anyone can post photos in their new topics or replies.Who can change or delete posts? Any CoffeeGeek member can edit their own posts. Only moderators can delete posts.Probationary Period: If you are a new signup for CoffeeGeek, you cannot promote, endorse, criticise or otherwise post an unsolicited endorsement for any company, product or service in your first five postings.